Geocache ID card

[+krisandmel]

Rather than go through a long post explaining why I still don't agree with you, let me just say that 1) In general, I don't appear suspicious when I cache. 2) People are quite unlikely to spot me with the cache at most cache sites, 3) I almost certainly wouldn't be any where nearby by the time an LEO arrives, and 4) if he questions me based on some sketchy 'acting suspicious' complaint, he still would not have enough to go on to detain me for questioning. My unwillingness to hang out and play twenty questions with him would not give him further ability to detain me further or arrest me.

 

Rather than go through another long post to explain to you further why you are wrong, I suggest you ask some Police Officers, Lawyers, and th ACLU. Just because you disagree, does not make you right.

 

Hogosha, I believe you are incorrect.

Please read the following, taken from this page: Street Stop Scenario

 

2) Be Courteous & Non-Confrontational

If you are stopped by a police officer, remain calm. Don't ever -- under any circumstances -- talk back or raise your voice to a police officer. You have nothing to gain -- and everything to lose -- by escalating the hostility level of the encounter.

 

Even if the officers are being belligerent it's always in your best interest to remain calm, courteous and non-confrontational.

 

3) Determine the Reason You Have Been Stopped

Police may initiate a conversation with any citizen for any reason, however they may not detain you without "reasonable suspicion" that you are engaged in criminal activity. Ask the officer: "Why am I being stopped?" If the officer does not indicate that you are suspected of a specific crime, then this is a casual stop and you should be allowed to terminate the encounter at any time.

 

If the officer indicates that you are suspected of criminal activity, you are being detained. At this stage, the officer is attempting to find evidence on which to establish probable cause necessary to arrest you. Steps #4, #5, and #6 become extremely important at this point.

 

4) Just Say "No" to Warrantless Searches

Warning: If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The only reason he's asking you is because he doesn't have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request you give up one of the most important constitutional rights you have—your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

A majority of avoidable police searches occur because citizens naively waive their Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to warrantless searches. As a general rule, if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person.

 

Don't expect a police officer to tell you about your right not to consent. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. In addition, police officers are trained to use their authority to get people to consent to a search, and most people are predisposed to comply with any request a police officer makes. For example, the average motorist stopped by a police officer who asks them, "Would you mind if I search your vehicle, please?" will probably consent to the officer's search without realizing that they have every right to deny the officer's request.

 

If, for any reason you don't want the officer digging through your belongings, you should refuse to consent by saying something like, "Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I do not consent to any searches of my private property." If the officer still proceeds to search you and finds illegal contraband, your attorney can argue that the contraband was discovered through an illegal search and hence should be thrown out of court.

 

You should never hesitate to assert your constitutional rights. Just say "no!"

 

5) Determine if You Can Leave

You have the right to terminate an encounter with a police officer unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. The general rule is that you don't have to answer any questions that the police ask you. This rule comes from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects you against self-incrimination. If you cannot tell if you are allowed to leave, say to the officer, "I have to be on my way. Am I free to go?"

 

If the officer says "Yes," tell him to have a nice day, and leave immediately. If the officer's answer is ambiguous, or if he asks you another unrelated question, persist by asking "am I being detained, or can I go now?" If the officer says "No," you are being detained, and you may be placed under arrest. If this is the case, reassert your rights as outlined above, and follow Rules #6 and #7.

 

Not trying to cause an argument here, just trying to clarify a few things.

With respect, -Kris

[+egami]

Having personal legal experience in this type of situation let me suggest one thing. When you are standing in front of the judge I wouldn't lip off about anything remotely insinuating that any officer worth their badge should know what geocaching is and how to profile for it.

[+krisandmel]

Good point!

 

I'm just stating a fact.

Just like as an RN I am expected to know what interventions are indicated for certain physical conditions --- police officers are expected to know what behaviors indicate probable criminal activity and what behaviors are appropriate for the setting/recreational-activity.

 

I would never act snotty to a cop, a judge, a minister, a supervisor, or anyone in authority.

 

And I try not to be snotty to anyone else, unless they've dished it out first.

But that's generally only in face-to-face conversations with people I know, everyone acts a bit different with friends & family than they do with strangers.

 

On the net, at the various forums I visit, I do my best to convey my opinions respectfully and clearly.

Without tone of voice and non-verbal cues such as body language, it is very easy to type something that comes across as mean or rude, or something meant as a joke or chide could be interpreted as an attack on someone's character.

 

I usually proof-read my posts before submitting them to change words and check punctuation and syntax, but I'm sure I still miscommunicate things from time to time.

-K

[+egami]

I'm just stating a fact.

Just like as an RN I am expected to know what interventions are indicated for certain physical conditions --- police officers are expected to know what behaviors indicate probable criminal activity and what behaviors are appropriate for the setting/recreational-activity.

 

But it's not a fact...if an officer isn't aware of what geocaching is, and a geocacher appears to the officer to be displaying suspicious behavior, then a judge will side on the officer unless there is some glaring reason that shows the officer was being negligent, harassing or intentionally deviant.

 

I agree with most of your reply, btw. Including how you feel you've presented your case...I don't in any way feel you are trying to be deliberately defiant or mischevious.

 

I am simply saying that in a court of law an officer is not going to be held accountable for not knowing what geocaching is when determining suspicious behavior.

 

My wife is an RN...you're right she is held accountable for situations that specifically relate to her area of expertise (especially because she is trained specifically for them), but if an event arose on her floor that was outside of her area of expertise, or training, then she isn't going to be considered negligent for not knowing every possible medical condition that can arise.

Edited September 1, 2006 by egami

[+krisandmel]

Thanks for the reply, egami.

 

You are right. I am required to know the ins & outs of my specialty, med/surg, but I know very little about open-heart surgery and am not legally expected to know about that.

 

I guess I would hope most officers are aware of geocaching, but you are absolutely correct, they are not required to.

 

I do see how my geocaching could look fishy, and I would certainly state that I am 'caching if asked by law enforcement.

But no, they can't look in my backpack or turn out my pockets for that.

And I will respectfully decline.

 

If they say they are going to do it anyway, I will not stop them.

At that point, you are right, it is up to the court to sort it out.

 

Thanks for a different point-of-view!

-K

[+larryc43230]

And another thing, wandering around in the woods or parks looking under logs and in nooks & crannies is not suspicious behavior, it's geocaching behavior.

Any officer worth his/her badge should have at least heard of geocaching and be familiar with the profile of a 'cacher.

You know: a GPSr, probably some cache pages or a PDA with cache data, maybe a backpack or fannypack, a hiking staff maybe, and usually a big smile.

A few weeks ago, I went after a microcache hidden in a very public location at a local college. It was hidden in bushes at the front of a major building near the center of the campus. Finding and retrieving the cache required climbing behind the bushes, making it look to anyone not knowing what I was doing that I was hiding there. I had chosen a time, near sunset, when, hopefully, there would be relatively few students in the area. As it turned out it appeared that I had chosen a good time; there wasn't anyone around when I realized I needed to dive into the bushes to get the cache. Just as I was signing the log, still in the bushes, a group of students walked up to the building and proceeded to stand in front of the bushes and talk among themselves.

 

I'm a 57-year-old male. Nothing I might have had with me: a GPSr, geocaching brochures, or an engaging smile, could have prevented me from looking suspicious if I had emerged from those bushes while the students (or, theoretically, a policeman) were standing there. I was engaged in a lawful activity (the cache had been approved by the college and that particular building's management), but I would not have blamed those students, or any policeman who might have seen me there, for deeming my behavior "suspicious." And I would have cooperated 100% with any law enforcement type who asked for an explanation.

 

Even though geocaching is a legitimate hobby, some of our behaviors can be prima facie "suspicious," and I for one will go out of my way to cooperate with the authorities when necessary. I don't consider that an abrogation of my rights, it's just common sense. If I were in their shoes (either the students or a policeman) and saw someone emerge from behind some bushes, I would be very suspicious as to what that person was up to.

 

I respectfully disagree about your statement that the typical officer is aware of geocaching. Not counting friends I know who are geocachers themselves, not one person, cop or otherwise, that I've mentioned my hobby to had even heard of geocaching before I explained it to them. Maybe the general public in your area has a higher degree of awareness of geocaching than the folks in my neck of the woods. Only a very small percentage of the people around here have even heard of it.

 

--Larry

[+Confucius' Cat]

Reality check:

 

The officer has the upper hand. He/she has weapons and backup. ON THE SCENE, the LEO IS "the law".

 

The question you have to ask yourself is this:

 

Notwithstanding that you (or perhaps your estate) might ultimately win a million dollar lawsuit, do you want to (check one or all of the below) :

 

Spend the night in jail

Be the "star" of the next "Rodney King" video

Spend a lot of money on a lawyer

Get home late and explain the whole thing to your spouse

DNF the cache! (Arrrrgh!)

 

Better to cooperate. Assuming the officers' requests are reasonable. You can still file that lawsuit for civil rights violation even without the "Rodney King" video.

 

You just might want to think about who is WITNESSING your encounter before you decide to play the civil rights martyr. You might not be so lucky as to have your encounter on video- (or the video might make you look like an ***)

[+BlueDeuce]

Reality check:

 

 

Yes, I love it when people tell me that, based on their logical explanation, this is how cops should/will/must react.

 

I just never hear the same viewpoint when the cops actually do show up.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Reality check:

 

Yes, I love it when people tell me that, based on their logical explanation, this is how cops should/will/must react.

 

No. Not "should/will/must", just COULD. Cops VERY RARELY go to such extremes. But an unpleasant encounter is much more likely when the cops perceive someone as a "smart alec" or a "street lawyer" or someone trying to present themselves as having a special priviledge (hey- the OP topic, how bout that).

 

The question is, "do you really want the hassle"? Is a film can worth "it"? (Whatever "it" might be)

 

I just never hear the same viewpoint when the cops actually do show up.

 

Huh? I don't understand. I see no relevance to my post.